This was one of the two rulings delivered at Mondays resumed hearing of the presidential election petition tribunal in Abuja.

The request to inspect the central server of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, was one that the petitioners - the PDP and its candidate Atiku Abubakar – had passionately canvassed for.

According to them, information related to voter accreditation, smart card reader data, and the results of the election were electronically transmitted to INEC’S central server. The petitioners had argued, that in order for justice to be done in the case, they needed to have access to the server.

They also had requested for an order of the tribunal to compel the chief collation officer for the presidential election to grant the petitioners leave to obtain the certified true copies of the information requested for and to file a report of the inspection, examination, and analysis of what has been discovered.

The petitioners’ request was jointly opposed by the three respondents, INEC, President Buhari and the APC. INEC through its lawyer had strongly denied the existence of the server and further argued that it did not electronically transmit results of the presidential election as it was not empowered to do so either in the electoral act or in the guidelines for the election. The electoral body also submitted that the server address quoted by the petitioners does not belong to it.

Ruling on the submissions on Monday, the court of appeal justices were of the opinion that it will not be expedient to grant the request to inspect the server at this point. While acknowledging that the grant or refusal of such request is discretionary, which must be exercised in favor of the justice of the case, presiding justice Mohammed Garba noted that the arguments for and against the existence of an INEC central server has been canvassed by the parties in the substantive petition and issues have been joined, as such delving into it will be tantamount to deciding a substantive matter at the interlocutory stage. For this primary reason, the justices unanimously dismissed the motion.

But for the petitioners, the ruling may have thrown up more complex issues and hurdles on the path to a judicious determination of the case with regards to section 151 of the electoral act.

That section, which was acknowledged in the course of the ruling states “an order for an inspection of a document or any other packet in the custody of the Chief National Electoral Commissioner or any other officer of the commission may be made by the election tribunal or the court if satisfied that the inspection is required for the purpose of instituting, maintaining and defending an election petition.

Subsection 2 further adds inter alia “a document retained by the chief national electoral commissioner or any other officer in the commission shall be open for inspection on an order made by the election tribunal or a court in the exercise of its powers.

The petitioners were clearly dissatisfied with the outcome for INEC and president Buhari, the ruling couldn’t have been more apt.

For now, a first strand of the presidential election may soon be on its way to the Supreme Court. That, however, will not stop proceedings at the court of the first instance.

Earlier in Monday’s proceedings, the presidential election petition panel had ruled in favor of president Buhari allowing an amendment involving the address of the solicitor on record on its reply to the petition, an issue the petitioner had opposed on the ground that it was a defect that rendered the defence of the president incompetent.

But the justices held the view that the amendment sought was a substantial alteration that will injure the rights of the petitioners but a mere irregularity.

Wednesday, June 26 has been fixed for the continuation of hearing.